2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

Today’s daf is not just about intention (like our past two) but about what might happen when we are not paying attention.

Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar said: If the shawl of one who was stringent with regard to ritual purity fell off of him, and he said to another person: Give it to me, and he gave it to him, the shawl is impure. . .

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: There was an incident involving two women who were wives of ḥaverim, who are meticulous in observance of halakha especially with regard to matters of impurity, whose clothes were switched in the bathhouse; and the incident came before Rabbi Akiva and he declared the clothes impure. . .

Why? Both of the men in the first example were clean, the women were certainly clean as they are in the bathhouse of all places – so, why are they “impure”?

Well, first, we need to remember that purity is not the same as cleanliness – it has to do with our holy state which has everything to do with intention. Intention needs attention. In both the cases above, the person’s attention has been lost, and THAT is what makes the object become impure.

The daf gives more examples or what might happen when we’re not paying attention. This is the gem for today. Just to consider what happens when we stop paying attention.

As I write this the President is giving the State of the Union. I can’t help but think of what our politicians (and so many men in power) do while we are not paying attention. We need to keep our eyes open.

I spoke yesterday of the fact that the ocean can be a kosher mikvah if we go in with the correct intention. Today, the question becomes, can a mikvah just be a pool if we don’t have the right intention? And, what if we went into the mikvah without the intention of becoming purified but then, as we are leaving the mikvah, change our minds and want our dip to have been for the sake of purification?

In a case where one has immersed and is ascending, and one of his feet is still in the water, if he had originally intended to assume presumptive status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may still intend to assume presumptive status for a major matter. But if he has fully ascended, he may no longer intend to assume a presumptive status for any other matter. The Gemara rejects this inference: No, it should be understood as follows: If he is still in the water, then although he previously intended to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may now intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for whatever purpose he wishes, since one can adjust his intention during his immersion. Once he has already ascended, if he did not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity at all, but immersed without any intention, he may intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for whatever he wishes even after ascending from the ritual bath; but if he did intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for a major matter, as his intention was fixed when he ascended from the ritual bath.

So, what’s the rule? Well, Rabbi Eliezer rules that, even after you leave the water, you can still decide that you wanted the water to purify you retroactively. But, there are different levels of purity, so if one went into the water for the purposes of purifying yourself so that you could eat trumah, you can’t decide after you leave the water that you really wanted it to make you pure enough to eat from the sacrifices. . . but if you still have your feet in the water then you can still change your mind and determine your purity level while your feet soak.

Oy! So, we learn that, again, intention matters and we learn of different levels of purification. Same action (mikvah immersion) but different results solely based upon what we are thinking.

Today’s gem is the reminder that intentions matter and that “purity” in Judaism is a ritual state, not a state of cleanliness.

The Sages taught: One who washes his hands, if he intended to purify them, his hands are pure; if he did not intend to do so, his hands are impure. Similarly, in the case of one who immerses his hands in forty se’a of water, if he intended to purify them, his hands are pure; if he did not so intend, his hands are impure.

I love to swim in the ocean. I love the waves, the salt, the connection to so many creatures. The ocean is also a kosher mikvah. The difference between a swim and a ritual (besides what one wears in the water) is intention.

May we make moments for the holy.

Today’s gem is one of my favorite idioms in Hebrew:  tafasta m’ruba, lo tafasta

תָּפַשְׂתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַשְׂתָּ, תָּפַשְׂתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַשְׂתָּ.

If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something.

In modern Hebrew, this means don’t bite off more than you can chew . . . or do a few things well instead of a bunch of things shloky (inferiorly).

However, how it’s used in on the daf shows a different understanding.

Steinsaltz writes: “In other words, when one must choose between a smaller number and a larger one, there is more certainty in choosing the smaller one. Even if that choice turns out to be erroneous, it is preferable to the larger one, as it is included in it.”

What is he saying? Well, we are in the book of Chag – festivals – and one of the things we do on Chag is make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and offer up a sacrifice at the Temple. We learned earlier that if one cannot come to Jerusalem on the first day of the Chag, then you come and offer your sacrifice on one of the 7 days of Passover or one of the 8 days of Sukkot (Shmini Atzeret gives us that extra day). But, Shavuot is only one day, so if we miss that one day – what can we do?

tafasta m’ruba, lo tafasta – In this case (the specific case on today’s daf) seven is included in eight, so take the smaller one – meaning you bring it on one of the following days of the week.

Mind you, that’s just one opinion. But, as we are not offering sacrifices, let’s just focus in on the gem of this Hebrew expression “tafasta m’ruba, lo tafasta” and use today’s meaning to teach us today’s lesson.

Don’t do too much. Do less but do it well.

. 

Today’s gem is this brief passage about how humans are neither angel nor animal but similar in many ways to both:

Six statements were said with regard to humans: In three ways, they are like ministering angels, and in three ways they are like animals. The baraita explains: In three ways they are like ministering angels: They have intelligence like ministering angels; and they walk upright like ministering angels; and they speak in the holy tongue like ministering angels. In three ways humans are like animals: They eat and drink like animals; and they multiply like animals; and they emit excrement like animals.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that walking upright, speaking, and intelligence make us like angels as we often use our intelligence to say things to others that are not at all reflective of being a messenger of God. But I do love the reminder that we are both animals and more than animal – we are also messengers of God. What does that mean to how we live? What we say? How we hold ourselves? How we treat others?

Shalom Aleichem Malachei HaSharet Malachei Elyon!

Shalom upon you, O ministering angels, Angels of the Exalted One.

Wow, what a sad and fascinating page of Talmud. . .

We learned yesterday of Elisha ben Avuya, called “Acher” meaning “other”, who turned into a heretic, losing his faith, after entering Pardes – this mystical level of study. On today’s daf, we see how much the other rabbis loved Elisha ben Avuya, how much they wanted him to repent, how they learned Torah from him, even though he himself could not believe – and we see how he believed he was beyond repentance.

A Divine Voice went forth saying: “Return, rebellious children” (Jeremiah 3:22), apart from Aḥer.

Elisha ben Avuya beleives he hears this, hears angels saying this, and so he thinks there is nothing he can do in this life to repent, to be saved . . .

Upon hearing this, Elisha ben Avuya said: Since that man, meaning himself, has been banished from that world, let him go out and enjoy this world. Aḥer went astray. He went and found a prostitute and solicited her for intercourse. She said to him: And are you not Elisha ben Avuya? Shall a person of your stature perform such an act? He uprooted a radish from a patch of radishes on Shabbat and gave it to her, to demonstrate that he no longer observed the Torah. The prostitute said: He is other than he was. He is not the same Elisha ben Avuya, he is Aḥer, other.

We see him trying to live a life of sin. But Rabbi Meir keeps trying to save him.

Aḥer asked Rabbi Meir after he had gone astray. What is the meaning of that which is written: “Gold and glass cannot equal it; neither shall its exchange be vessels of fine gold” (Job 28:17)? . . . Aḥer: Just as golden vessels and glass vessels have a remedy even when they have broken, as they can be melted down and made into new vessels, so too a Torah scholar, although he has transgressed, has a remedy. Rabbi Meir said to him: If so, you too, return from your ways. He said to him: I have already heard the following declaration behind the dividing curtain, which conceals God from the world: “Return, rebellious children,” (Jeremiah 3:22) apart from Aḥer.

Everything can be fixed but him.

Rabbi Meir does not give up, we see him accompanying his friend on Shabbat, Elisha ben Avuya on a horse, Rabbi Meir on foot, talking Torah. We see Rabbi Meir bring Elisha ben Avuya to many houses of study, but each time Elisha ben Avuya asks a child what they’re learning, it seems as if the verse is a direct insult of him.

We also see scenes of Elisha ben Avuya singing Greek songs, reading forbidden books, and asking troubling questions. At the same time, he is able to teach pieces of Torah that others cannot comprehend, and you have to wonder if he would have been able to teach these things had he not been exposed to foreign ideas.

Elisha ben Avuya is a sad story, but a beautiful one. We should never believe we are beyond repentance. Never believe that we are beyond saving, hopeless. And also know that even those who go astray may have something to teach.

Oh what a daf we have today! We have rabbis explaining mystical things that should not be discussed with angels baring witness, rainbows forming, blessings being given. (but lest you think it’s all high and lofty, there is also a rabbi who brags that he can have sex with virgins without breaking their hymens .. . yep.)

But, by far, the most amazing passage is the following passage that warns about the dangers of studying mystical texts and delving into things that are meant to be hidden or secret from human understanding:

The Sages taught: Four entered the orchard [pardes], i.e., dealt with the loftiest secrets of Torah, and they are as follows: Ben Azzai; and ben Zoma; Aḥer, the other, a name for Elisha ben Avuya; and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva, the senior among them, said to them: When, upon your arrival in the upper worlds, you reach pure marble stones, do not say: Water, water, although they appear to be water, because it is stated: “He who speaks falsehood shall not be established before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7).

The Gemara proceeds to relate what happened to each of them: Ben Azzai glimpsed at the Divine Presence and died. And with regard to him the verse states: “Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His pious ones” (Psalms 116:15). Ben Zoma glimpsed at the Divine Presence and was harmed, i.e., he lost his mind. And with regard to him the verse states: “Have you found honey? Eat as much as is sufficient for you, lest you become full from it and vomit it” (Proverbs 25:16). Aḥer chopped down the shoots of saplings. In other words, he became a heretic. Rabbi Akiva came out safely.

Four sages study mystical texts, one dies, one losses his mind, one rejects God and only one comes out safely.

This text is the basis for the Steinberg book, “As a Driven Leaf” as well as for a form of Torah study called PaRDeS (as the 4 Sages enter pardes). PaRDes study is an accronym:

P-pshat – the plain meaning of the text

R – remez – the hint towards some sort of deeper meaning

D-drash – the explanation/story/sermon or teaching a wise person may derive from the text and:

S – Sod – the secret, esoteric meaning of the text.

It’s the sod that gets these Sages in trouble.

Besides the plain meaning of the text above – we can’t help but think of what it means to try to be close to God, what the repercussions might be for pursuing deep faith and deep understanding . . . what part of us dies? What part of us goes crazy? What part of us can’t believe? and what part of us can take it in and continue?

 חשמל Chashmal, is the modern Israeli word for electricity. Most Israeli words for modern things derive from the English (like telovisia, or pelefone). So, you might imagine that electricity would be something that sounds much like electricity, but no. Why? Because long before Franklin went flying a kite in a lightening storm in 1752 or Edison honed in the power of light in 1879, there was the Talmud (~350), and before that, the prophet Ezekiel (6th century BCE). As we see on today’s daf:

The Gemara poses a question: And may one teach about the electrum (Chashmal) of the Design of the Divine Chariot at all? But wasn’t there a certain youth who expounded the electrum (Chashmal), and fire came out and consumed him, showing that such study is highly dangerous? The Gemara answers: That youth was different, for his time to study such matters had not yet arrived. Therefore, he was punished.

Rav Yehuda said: Indeed, that man is remembered for good, and Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya was his name, because were it not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed. Why did they wish to suppress it? Because they found that its words contradicted the words of Torah, as its later chapters contain many halakhot that appear not to accord with those of the Torah. What did he do? They brought up to him three hundred barrels of oil, for light and sustenance, and he sat in an upper chamber and expounded it, to reconcile its teachings with those of the Torah.

The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving a youth who was reading the book of Ezekiel in the house of his teacher, and he was able to comprehend the electrum (Chashmal), and fire came out of the electrum (Chashmal) and burned him. And they sought to suppress the book of Ezekiel due to the danger it posed. Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya said to them: If this youth happened to be wise, are all people wise enough to understand this book?

The Gemara asks: What is the electrum(Chashmal)? Rav Yehuda said:

It refers to speaking animals of fire. Electrum [ḥashmal] is an acrostic of this phrase [ḥayyot esh memallelot]. It was taught in a baraita: At times they are silent; at times they speak. When the divine speech emerges from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, they are silent; and when the divine speech does not emerge from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, they speak.

You may be wondering – what did I just read? What was that supposed to mean? Well, mazal tov. We are not really supposed to understand Ezekiel, according to this text. What gem we get from this is that he pictured angels, not only as multi-faced cherubs, not only as winged creatures, but also as electricity.

Zap.

Today’s gem actually attempts to answer a question one of our 3rd graders asked me just last week: If god created light on the first day of creation, how is it that the sun and moon were only created on the 4th day?

The gem is questioning what that original light might have been:

As Rabbi Elazar said: The light that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the first day was not that of the sun but a different kind of light, through which man could observe from one end of the world to the other.

So, maybe it was understanding? A different kind of seeing? Of light?

But when the Holy One, Blessed be He, looked upon the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion and saw that their ways were corrupt and that they might misuse this light for evil, He arose and concealed it from them, as it is stated: “And from the wicked their light is withheld” (Job 38:15).

So, God was worried about how humanity would use this light, so God “concealed” the light. God did not destroy it, god hid it away. So, the Gemara asks

And for whom did He conceal it? For the righteous people in the future, as it is stated: “And God saw the light, that it was good” (Genesis 1:4), and “good” is referring to none other than the righteous, as it is stated: “Say of the righteous that it shall be good for them, for they shall eat the fruit of their actions” (Isaiah 3:10).

When the light saw that it had been concealed for the righteous, it rejoiced, as it is stated: “The light for the righteous shall rejoice” (Proverbs 13:9).

The Gemara comments: This is like a dispute between tanna’im: The light that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the first day was so profound that man could observe through it from one end of the world to the other; this is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. And the Rabbis say: This light is the very same as the lights created on the first day, but they were not suspended in their designated places in the firmament until the fourth day.

So, we get this deep and profound understanding that the light might be something more, give more than the ability to physically see . . . and then rabbis who just say – nope, same light, just not in a container until day 4.

Ha!

Kabbalists play with this idea – the light is the light of Ein Sof, the light of God. Indeed, it’s hidden away, but acts of righteousness help us to find the light and shine the light.

Yesterday, the daf began to debate what laws are “like mountains suspended by a hair,” meaning they have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous.” So these laws are barely mentioned in Torah but have mountains of legal discourse around them and lots of rules to follow. The entire a side and most of the b side of today’s daf deals with this same question – which laws have barely any mention in Torah but lots of rules surrounding them.

Each suggestion follows the same pattern in the Gemara. An area of law is put out as fitting into the category, then rabbis defensively say that it’s mentioned in the Torah many times and then they quote verses to prove their point. Oddly enough, their quoting of verses only proves the point that the particular law is really not obvious if you just read Torah. For example:

The Gemara elaborates. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “But if any harm follow, then you shall give life for life” (Exodus 21:23). This verse is referring to a payment of money. Do you say money, or perhaps it is solely an actual life that is demanded? The term giving is stated below: “You shall give life for life,” and giving is stated above, in the previous verse: “And he shall give as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). Just as there, the giving is in the form of money, so too here, it is referring to a payment of money.

They argue that, although this halakha is not explicit in the Torah, the verses lend support to it meaning that life for life really means money for a life . . .

This “obvious” reading is not at all obvious. Neither has it historically been interpreted this way by many who read the bible.

So, why is this my gem?

When you’ve spent over two years reading Talmud (mazal tov), you see that often there are pages and pages of discussion about things that seem to barely be connected to the Torah text. Sometimes, it seems the rabbis are inserting their ideas onto the Torah. And yes, it feels like we have mountains of laws to learn and study and the connection to Torah is ephemeral. . . like a mountain suspended by a hair.